Etoricoxib - preemptive and postoperative analgesia (EPPA) in patients with laparotomy or thoracotomy - design and protocols

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background and Objective</p> <p>Our objective was to report on the design and essentials of the <it>Etoricoxib </it>protocol<it>- Preemptive and Postoperative Analgesia (EPPA) </it>Trial, investigating whether preemptive analgesia with cox-2 inhibitors is more efficacious than placebo in patients who receive either laparotomy or thoracotomy.</p> <p>Design and Methods</p> <p>The study is a 2 × 2 factorial armed, double blinded, bicentric, randomised placebo-controlled trial comparing (a) etoricoxib and (b) placebo in a pre- and postoperative setting. The total observation period is 6 months. According to a power analysis, 120 patients scheduled for abdominal or thoracic surgery will randomly be allocated to either the preemptive or the postoperative treatment group. These two groups are each divided into two arms. Preemptive group patients receive etoricoxib prior to surgery and either etoricoxib again or placebo postoperatively. Postoperative group patients receive placebo prior to surgery and either placebo again or etoricoxib after surgery (2 × 2 factorial study design). The Main Outcome Measure is the cumulative use of morphine within the first 48 hours after surgery (measured by patient controlled analgesia PCA). Secondary outcome parameters include a broad range of tests including sensoric perception and genetic polymorphisms.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results of this study will provide information on the analgesic effectiveness of etoricoxib in preemptive analgesia and will give hints on possible preventive effects of persistent pain.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00716833</p

Specific treatment of problems of the spine (STOPS): design of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy versus advice for people with subacute low back disorders

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back disorders are a common and costly cause of pain and activity limitation in adults. Few treatment options have demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits apart from advice which is recommended in all international guidelines. Clinical heterogeneity of participants in clinical trials is hypothesised as reducing the likelihood of demonstrating treatment effects, and sampling of more homogenous subgroups is recommended. We propose five subgroups that allow the delivery of specific physiotherapy treatment targeting the pathoanatomical, neurophysiological and psychosocial components of low back disorders. The aim of this article is to describe the methodology of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy treatment to advice for people classified into five subacute low back disorder subgroups.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multi-centre parallel group randomised controlled trial is proposed. A minimum of 250 participants with subacute (6 weeks to 6 months) low back pain and/or referred leg pain will be classified into one of five subgroups and then randomly allocated to receive either physiotherapy advice (2 sessions over 10 weeks) or specific physiotherapy treatment (10 sessions over 10 weeks) tailored according to the subgroup of the participant. Outcomes will be assessed at 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 6 months and 12 months following randomisation. Primary outcomes will be activity limitation measured with a modified Oswestry Disability Index as well as leg and back pain intensity measured on separate 0-10 Numerical Rating Scales. Secondary outcomes will include a 7-point global rating of change scale, satisfaction with physiotherapy treatment, satisfaction with treatment results, the Sciatica Frequency and Bothersomeness Scale, quality of life (EuroQol-5D), interference with work, and psychosocial risk factors (Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire). Adverse events and co-interventions will also be measured. Data will be analysed according to intention to treat principles, using linear mixed models for continuous outcomes, Mann Whitney U tests for ordinal outcomes, and Chi-square, risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will determine the difference in outcomes between specific physiotherapy treatment tailored to each of the five subgroups versus advice which is recommended in guidelines as a suitable treatment for most people with a low back disorder.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12609000834257.aspx">ACTRN12609000834257</a>.</p

Backbone NMR reveals allosteric signal transduction networks in the β1-adrenergic receptor

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are physiologically important transmembrane signalling proteins that trigger intracellular responses upon binding of extracellular ligands. Despite recent breakthroughs in GPCR crystallography1–3, the details of ligand induced signal transduction are not well understood owing to missing dynamical information. In principle, such information can be provided by NMR4, but so far only limited data of functional relevance on few side-chain sites of eukaryotic GPCRs have been obtained 5–9. Here we show that receptor motions can be followed at virtually any backbone site in a thermostabilized mutant of the turkey β1-adrenergic receptor (β1AR) 10–12. Labelling with [15N] valine in a eukaryotic expression system provides over twenty resolved resonances that report on structure and dynamics in six ligand complexes and the apo form. The response to the various ligands is heterogeneous in the vicinity of the binding pocket, but gets transformed into a homogeneous readout at the intracellular side of helix 5 (TM5), which correlates linearly with ligand efficacy for the G protein pathway. The effect of several pertinent, thermostabilizing point mutations was assessed by reverting them to the native sequence. Whereas the response to ligands remains largely unchanged, binding of the G protein mimetic nanobody NB80 and G protein activation are only observed when two conserved tyrosines (Y227 and Y343) are restored. Binding of NB80 leads to very strong spectral changes throughout the receptor, including the extracellular ligand entrance pocket. This indicates that even the fully thermostabilized receptor undergoes activating motions in TM5, but that the fully active state is only reached in presence of Y227 and Y343 by stabilization with a G protein-like partner. The combined analysis of chemical shift changes from the point mutations and ligand responses identifies crucial connections in the allosteric activation pathway, and presents a general experimental method to delineate signal transmission networks at high resolution in GPCRs

Clinical factors of importance for outcome after lumbar disc herniation surgery: long-term follow-up

Factors as age, sex, smoking, duration of leg pain, working status, type/level of disc herniation and psychosocial factors have been demonstrated to be of importance for short-term results after lumbar discectomy. There are few studies with long-term follow-up. In this prospective study of lumbar disc herniation patients undergoing surgery, the result was evaluated at 2 and 5–10 (mean 7.3) years after surgery. Predictive factors for satisfaction with treatment and objective outcome were investigated. Out of the included 171 patients undergoing lumbar discectomy, 154 (90%) patients completed the 2-year follow-up and 140 (81%) completed the long-term follow-up. Baseline data and questionnaires about leg- and back pain intensity (VAS), duration of leg pain, disability (Oswestry Disability Index), depression (Zung Depression Scale), sick leave and employment status were obtained preoperatively, at 2-year- and long-term follow-up. Primary outcome included patient satisfaction with treatment (at both time points) and assessment of an independent observer at the 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes at 2-year follow-up were improvement of leg and back pain, working capacity and the need for analgesics or sleeping pills. In about 70% of the patients excellent or good overall result was reported at both follow-ups, with subjective outcome measurements. The objective evaluation after 2 years was in agreement with this result. Time on sick leave was found to be a clinically important predictor of the primary outcomes, with a potential of changing the probability of a satisfactory outcome (both objective and subjective) from around 50% (sick leave >3 months) to 80% (sick leave <2 months). Time on sick leave was also an important predictor for several of the secondary outcomes; e.g. working capacity and the need for analgesics